W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > August 2002

More review comments (was RE: 13 Aug Arch Doc available for revie w)

From: Williams, Stuart <skw@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2002 18:57:34 +0100
Message-ID: <5E13A1874524D411A876006008CD059F04A06FCF@0-mail-1.hpl.hp.com>
To: "'Ian B. Jacobs'" <ij@w3.org>
Cc: www-tag@w3.org

Ian,

The remainder of my comments on
http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2002/0813-archdoc.

Cheers

Stuart
--

Section 1.5.2
-------------

[skw-2002-08-16-01]

"New Schemes Expensive:... The introduction of new URI schemes SHOULD be
avoided."

There was discussion of this on the list starting at [1] which ended
inconclusively.

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2002Jul/0252.html

--

Section 1.5.2.1
---------------

[skw-2002-08-16-02]

Replace "..., TELNET URIs represent telnet services and MAILTO URIs
electronic mailboxes." with 

         "..., TELNET URIs identify telnet services and 
                            ^^^^^^^
          MAILTO URIs identify electronic mailboxes."
                      ^^^^^^^^

--

Section 1.5.2.2
---------------

[skw-2002-08-16-03]


"The procedure for dereferencing a URI may vary from scheme to scheme. For
example, HTTP URIs are dereferencable using the protocol of the same name,
and the scheme is actually defined in section 3.2.2 of the HTTP
specification [RFC 2616]."

The word scheme is used twice to mean very different things. Suggest
rewording the 2nd sentence as : "..., and the dereferencing procedure is
actually defined in section 3.2.2 of the HTTP specification [RFC 2616]." 

--

[skw-2002-08-16-04]

"@@Does it work here to substitute "dereference" for GET?@@"

Roy referenced a good definition of the term "dereference" at
http://wombat.doc.ic.ac.uk/foldoc/foldoc.cgi?dereference. 

I'd like to note that by that definition dereferencing also occurs when the
referent is on the left hand of an assignment as well as the right. When
PUT'ing or POST'ing to a resource identified by a URI is there a sense in
which the URI is being dereferenced? I think so.... in which case
dereferencing and GET'ing are not synoymous.

OTOH, we can, and seem to be, defining "dereference" to mean 'safe
retrieval'(eg. http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/get7#safety). 

I'm not suggesting a text change... but I would like to be sure that we
really do mean that there is no-sense in which PUT'ing or POST'ing are
regarded as dereferencing a URI if we chose to define GET'ing and
dereferencing as synonymous (at least for HTTP).

--

Section 1.5.2.4
---------------

[skw-2002-08-16-05]

Replace 
	"Certain URI schemes provide syntactic rules for determining
equivalence in URIs, and these rules vary from scheme to scheme." 
with
	"Certain URI schemes provide rules for determining the syntactic
equivalence of URIs ie. whether two URI references are different spellings
of the same identifier. These rules vary from scheme to scheme." 

I think that we need to give a much clear account of our notions of
equivalence:

	URI syntactic equivalence - different spellings/presentations of the
*same* identifier.

	URI (semantic?) equivalence - different identifiers that identify
the same resource.

The latter is not determinable by inspection of the URI.

--

Section 1.6
-----------

[skw-2002-08-16-06]

Last sentence, replace:

	"The plain text media type does not define semantics for fragment
identifiers."

with

	"The media type 'text/plain' does not define semantics for fragment
identifiers."

--
Received on Friday, 16 August 2002 14:00:07 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 12:47:10 GMT